Talk:Lambert Simnel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:56, 4 October 2024

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 24, 2005 and May 24, 2006.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

English Royalty

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Birth and Death Dates

Contrary to the wiki article, Michael J. Bennett's entry for Simnel in the Oxford DNB says he was born 1476/7, and died after 1534 (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25569?_fromAuth=1). Cited as evidence is Vergil, who reports that Simnel was still alive at the time of writing, 1534 --131.111.247.135 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--The article states that:

“In 1996 an article was published claiming that Simnel was really King Edward V, the older of the Princes in the Tower. This is highly unlikely, although it did put forward some significant evidence that this was really the identity claimed by Simnel, not the identity of the Earl of Warwick."

Since Edward V was born November 4, 1470 and the Battle of Stoke Field was on June 16, 1487, it seems highly unlikely that Lambert Simnel was born in either 1476 or 1477 as no one is going to take a ten- or eleven-year-old boy for a teen of sixteen.

Likewise, I find it difficult to believe that a ten-year-old kid was on the battlefield at Stoke as even the nominal leader of the rebellion against royal authority. All in all, I think the evidence indicates that Simnel had been at the very least fourteen at the time of Stoke and thus had been born no later than 1473 and perhaps as early as 1470. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Wikisource has a Dictionary of National Biography entry, that is old, but at least provides sources for claims like Polydore Vergil, see [[1]]- -- 15:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E5:1700:F951:5C5E:7AC7:DCA0:29DE (talk)

Groom of the Stool?

Can anyone verify that Simnel was ever Groom of the Stool? I can't get access to a copy of the source, and it seems highly unlikely that Simnel would ever have served in such a role, and there is no time period after 1487 when a Groom of the Stool was not known; Henry VII's was Hugh Denys, Henry VIII had four (Compton, Norris, Heneage, and Denny), and Edward VI had Stanhope until 1551. Unless Simnel lived to 74 years old and was appointed then, there's no point in time where he could have served in that role. TheJamesifer (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name

If "contemporary records call him John, not Lambert", why is he known as Lambert today? SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WikiProject Biography
-|living=no
-|class=Start
-|listas=Simnel, Lambert
-}}
-{{WikiProject English Royalty|class=Start|importance=}}
 {{OnThisDay|date1=2005-05-24|oldid1=14219886|date2=2006-05-24|oldid2=54912952}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blp=no|listas=Simnel, Lambert|
+{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=y}}
+{{WikiProject English Royalty|importance=}}
+}}
 == Birth and Death Dates ==
@@ Line 19: / Line 17: @@
 Likewise, I find it difficult to believe that a ten-year-old kid was on the battlefield at Stoke as even the nominal leader of the rebellion against royal authority.  All in all, I think the evidence indicates that Simnel had been at the very least fourteen at the time of Stoke and thus had been born no later than 1473 and perhaps as early as 1470.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HistoryBuff14|contribs]]) 22:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Wikisource ==
-== Lambert Simnel's Good Fortune ==
+Wikisource has a Dictionary of National Biography entry, that is old, but at least provides sources for claims like [[Polydore Vergil]], see [[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Simnel,_Lambert]]- -- 15:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2003:E5:1700:F951:5C5E:7AC7:DCA0:29DE|2003:E5:1700:F951:5C5E:7AC7:DCA0:29DE]] ([[User talk:2003:E5:1700:F951:5C5E:7AC7:DCA0:29DE#top|talk]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Groom of the Stool? ==
+Can anyone verify that Simnel was ever Groom of the Stool? I can't get access to a copy of the source, and it seems highly unlikely that Simnel would ever have served in such a role, and there is no time period after 1487 when a Groom of the Stool was not known; Henry VII's was Hugh Denys, Henry VIII had four (Compton, Norris, Heneage, and Denny), and Edward VI had Stanhope until 1551. Unless Simnel lived to 74 years old and was appointed then, there's no point in time where he could have served in that role. [[User:TheJamesifer|TheJamesifer]] ([[User talk:TheJamesifer|talk]]) 22:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
+== Name ==
+If "contemporary records call him John, not Lambert", why is he known as Lambert today? [[User:SkywalkerEccleston|SkywalkerEccleston]] ([[User talk:SkywalkerEccleston|talk]]) 08:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
-One wonders if anyone else has observed how exceedingly fortunate the boy had been to have had “his side” defeated at Stoke Field!  Had the Yorkist forces prevailed, does anyone believe that John de la Pole would have actually allowed Simnel to have ruled in his own right upon coming of age?   Even if de la Pole had gone through with the charade of having the boy actually crowned King of England, how long would it have been before the youth would have been deposed on some pretense or another (and then likely to permanently disappear within the Tower of London), or succumbed to an “accident” leaving de la Pole as the legitimate heir to the throne?  One wonders if Simmnel realized this himself later in life. Henry VII was England’s great good fortune and certainly Simnel’s.  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:HistoryBuff14|HistoryBuff14]] ([[User talk:HistoryBuff14|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HistoryBuff14|contribs]]) 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:Very fortunate indeed. There's no way he ever would have been allowed to rule. And fortunate that Henry VII realized he was just a pawn in the hands of Henry's enemies. [[Special:Contributions/71.23.117.168|71.23.117.168]] ([[User talk:71.23.117.168|talk]]) 02:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)